freakwave

Eurobricks Citizen
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    409

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by freakwave

  4. Posted

     

    7 minutes ago, mostlytechnic said:

    .... In the top middle, those are two new gears. They're 20 and 12 tooth, but not double-beveled. I'm not really sure why they're necessary - the existing double-beveled gears work fine as standard gears. Plus I'm old-school - not a fan of the blue gears in multiple shades like this. Give me black and two greys for my gears please, with the occasional tan or white :sweet:

    As I had also the opportunity to review this for a German site, I could take a look at those new gears, and IMHO, those have an vast advantage over the beveld ones, as their interlocking is much better/deeper. So you won't experience slip under heavy load as the teeth of the beveled gears only go half that deep, compared to the new ones.

  8. Posted

    On 5/18/2020 at 7:56 AM, Mylenium said:

    ...but don't you think having to create dummy elements and relying on alignment functions is still kind of stupid and highly inefficient? Imagine you had to work this way constructing a machine in the real world and had to do it thousands of times...

    Mylenium

    You are always welcome to propose a better solution. Why is the solution inefficient? It looks to be the most efficient at the moment, and most importantly it solves the issue LDCad pretty quickly.

  15. Posted

    First of all, thanks for sending me the files.

    Interesting behavior...

    ...and even more interesting after doing some modifications...

    In a nutshell: LPUB4 does not like multiple "." (dots) in a filename...

    When I remove them from the sub4.1.ldr and sub4.2.ldr I can add the Call-Outs

    Now the interesting part: After adding the Call-Out, I can add the "." back into the filenames. It works, it opens in LPUB fine. However adding the next Call-Out crashes it again. Removing the second "." in the sub-files, everything is working again.

  20. Posted

    In their FAQ Lego is not exactly straight forward and somehow contradicting.

    The new plugs shall come as well for PF V2 and on the other hand they write "Education only". Time will tell.

    As written above the three systems, WeDo V1, WeDo V2 and PF(exist) use different voltages, 5V (off USB), 3V - 3,7V and 9V

    I cannot imagine that we will see 3V gear coming to Technic, may be as a new Micro-Motor but not for M, L and XL. Here power is needed and power is P = U x I. Having less voltage would require more current and thus draining the batteries really quickly. Just listen to the compressors of the AROCS and the Unimog... Imagine them on 3V...

    -> My guess: If there will be a new PF V2 it will still be 9V for Technic applications.

    This leads indirectly to a guess on the 6 wires that we see. Two speculations here, as four wires would be fine for thoese applicatiosn as we see it in Mindstorms.

    A) either they split the input and output. i.e. 2 wires supply, 2 wires control and 2 wires Input.

    B) or they use two supplies, 2 wires 9V, 2 wires 3V and 2 wires control.

    What is definitely a downside is the inability of stacking those connectors. For the Education purposed this is not really relevant but in Technic MOCs we still want to connect two motors to one output for whatever reason.

    A plus is the advent of Bluetooth in PF, a new PF Receiver (not the Smarthub) will be a very nice addition. I would expect four ports and and may be up to four controllers to be controller by one "remote"

    now the new remote. Will there be another dedicated remote? In my view there needs to be. Even if every kid now has a mobile phone, a stand alone remote would make sense.

  23. Posted

    I am not actually opposed to this though I wouldn't know how to find a vendor in china. I am certain that we could sell 20,000+ of them but I'm no expert on the legalities of reproducing a lego part (certainly megabloks knows a thing or two). Perhaps the answer is to create a ball of the same weight/size with no moldings (defining it as a soccer ball or basketball). It will be important to have the molded ball be multi colored (perhaps like a beach ball) because having the lines helps to show the movement and rotation of the balls and that is not something I would want to give up. It will also be important for the multi colored aspect to be molded and not painted since the paint will certainly wear off with active use.

    Thoughts?

    Are you member of a LUG? The balls are on the list of possible items to be ordered via LUGBULK. Definately a better deal than Bricklink and as the name suggests, you can order in large quantities...

  24. Posted

    Thanks for the review!

    Going through, I have a bit of an ambivalent feeling about this model. Do you own both?

    In my opinion the use of the round parts give a better feeling of the real thing and show a better surface (shadows). However the entrances are definitely better in the new set, those match very good the reality. The tower itself looks a bit too flat not providing the uneven surface of the vertical surfaces of the tower.

    The proportions look good, however the wings of the building seem a bit too wide (by scale)

    Nevertheless I will get it :-)

    and finally, do the introductions in the instruction differ between the both models?